FLUVANNA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION and REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CIRCUIT COURT ROOM—FLUVANNA COUNTY COURTS BUILDING 6:00 P.M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FLUVANNA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CIRCUIT COURT ROOM—FLUVANNA COUNTY COURTS BUILDING 6:00 p.m. Work Session 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting April 10, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Bibb, Chairman Ed Zimmer, Vice Chairman Lewis Johnson Sue Cotellessa Howard Lagomarsino Patricia Eager, Board of Supervisors Representative ALSO PRESENT: Jason Stewart, Planning and Zoning Administrator Brad Robinson, Senior Planner James Newman, Planner Fred Payne, County Attorney Stephanie Keuther, Senior Program Support Assistant Absent: None Open the Work Session: (Mr. Barry Bibb, Chairman) Pledge of Allegiance, Moment of Silence Director Comments: None Public Comments: None Work Session: ZTA – Density Updates – Presented by James Newman, Planner James Newman: gave a brief presentation showing different amounts of housing density. Zimmer: Is 1 unit per 2 acres a by-right density? Newman: In A-1 you have to have at least two acres per dwelling unit Eager: And that’s with road frontage on a state road? Newman: Yes. Payne: The density is one unit per two acres even though the lot size may be different. The difference is, where I live in Two Rivers the density is less than one unit per two acres even though the lots are about ¾ of an acre, because it’s a cluster subdivision. For the one that was just shown the lot size is two acres and the density is two acres. But you could have it be a quarter of that and still have the rest as an open space and still be at a density of two acres even though the lot sizes are small. Bibb: On Route, 6 going towards Scottsville there’s an R-1 there, that most of the time we don’t realize. How’s that setup? Newman: For R-1, they’re currently at one unit per one acre. Stewart: Most of those lots are split zoned. Bibb: The front is R-1 and the back is A-1. Stewart: Yes Bibb: I’m just trying to figure out if the new zoning for the Scottsville planning area will overlap that or not. Newman: The current density (shown as a table in the presentation), is what zoning states we have to have. The table also shows what the comprehensive plan would like to have. Payne: To answer your question I don’t think it does. I think those properties were rezoned to accommodate existing conditions or something. The lots were non-conforming, and I think that’s why they did it. Cotellessa: Again, to clarify you’re talking about quarter acre lots. Newman: For these particular ones, yes. In Rivanna Community Planning Area, we found it as being an aspirational amount of having it up to six units an acre. This is just shy of that amount at 5.9. This (photograph in the presentation) gives you an overview of what it looks like. Eager: Are those also family homes? Newman: Yes Payne: Another good example of this is the ones across the bottom (of the photograph) the single-family ones. That density is approximately, what you see in North downtown Charlottesville. Bibb: What is it over in Belmont, do you know? Payne: It’s about the same, maybe a little bigger. Cotellessa: The Belmont strikes me as being even closer to quarter acre lots. Zimmer: But density and lot size are not necessarily a direct correlation. Payne: They’re an inverse correlation. Zimmer: Yes, but they’re not directly inverse. So on this you have a greater density every place there’s a triplex and a duplex. And not a 10 or a 9.3 du/acre on the single families but the aggregate. Payne: That is correct. Draft Cotellessa: And in fact, if we’re not talking about single family houses or even duplexes, or triplexes if this turns into townhouses or multifamily then your open space is going to be quite a bit more. So it will look very different on the ground. Payne: One example of that in Fluvanna County is the Marina Pointe development at the lake. That is almost exactly the maximum density. But there’s a significant portion that was intended to be developed that can’t be developed because it was rezoned or zoned so they couldn’t. Newman: The reason we’re discussing this is because right now outside of a PUD the most you can get is R-3 which is 2.9 units per acre. Justin Shimp the developer and engineer had come to you all asking to make 2.9 the by-right amount for R-3 and have upwards of 10 dwelling units per acre for R-3 by special use permit. We’re not recommending that we go forward with that particular language. We’re just here to show you the different density amounts look like. Eager: So you would have to have central water and sewer at what point? Newman: In R-4 if you want to have 2.9 units per 1 acre you need to have water and sewer. Otherwise, in R-4 you can only have 1 unit per 2 acre using a septic and well. Eager: You can use septic in R-1 too? Payne: You can but you can’t maximize the density. Stewart: There’s a difference in lot sizes. Newman: It depends if you have well and septic or if you have the centralized water and sewer. Zimmer: If it’s centralized in R-1, you can go to the rural cluster, which is the same density. Payne: The example of the non-rural cluster is Fox Glen, which was rezoned R-1. Cotellessa: So your alternative if you have an R-3 piece of land and you want to put 8 dwelling units per acre of density is to rezone to a PUD right. Newman: Yes Cotellessa: So what he’s seeking to do is make it a special use permit as opposed to a rezoning. Stewart: Right now PUD’S are only permitted in the Zion Crossroads CPA. Zimmer: One thing that makes this confusing is the density is based on the zoning and our aspirations are based on comp plan community areas. Can you have rules that apply to R-4 zoning in the Scottsville comp plan community planning area? In other words, can you have a rule for there that doesn’t apply to R-4 zoning in general for the county? Cotellessa: Anytime you review a rezoning request one of the main things you do is look for consistencies with the comp plan. Stewart: Ideally, after we have a new comp plan we want to adopt our ordinances to match the comp plan. Zimmer: I think the greater densities could work at some level. Maybe not public but central water and sewer is an important aspect today. You don’t want to have too much density and then not have control over the possible side effects of wells and septic and those kinds of things. Or maybe you have to have some amount of acreage to have those things solve that problem in it and of itself. Bibb: Is there a way to have zoning such that they have to prove the availability of water on a piece of property when it comes to us, or for an SUP if there’s not water available from a centralized system? Payne: That’s actually exactly what came up at Poplar Ridge. That rezoning was conditioned upon compliance with a special use permit for the installation of common utilities, and they couldn’t get them. Bibb: If we had known already that water would not be available would we have had to go through all the stuff we went through with Walkers Ridge and Poplars Ridge? Payne: That was a debate that this commission and the Board actually had in that instance. If you recall there was a substantial sentiment, particularly on the commission, that you can’t have this permit unless you show that you’ve got the availability for the utilities. The Board was stronger on making a post approval condition. Zimmer: We did turn it down, mostly it seemed like for that reason it was the final straw. Then the Board approved it with the conditions. Payne: Another issue is the development by right. One of the proposals I think in the 2002 revision to the zoning ordinance was to require hydrogeological studies for by right subdivisions. So you wouldn’t get the “I’m coming in with a 2 acre density subdivision so I’ve got a by right” and get in there and lo-and-behold they can’t find water, can’t establish sewer and we didn’t have any alternative systems. The board, largely at the insistence of one of the members who was a developer. (Eager: Cecil Cobb) Payne: Said it’s too expensive to do it at that stage. If you get it approved then you know where your lots are, you can get testing done, and you’ve got money to finance that. And if you can’t get it done then you just can’t develop the lot. That was the choice the Board made. Bibb: With what you have listed up there now could another choice be simply allowed for a SUP to increase density in CPA’s up to a certain amount. Payne: I don’t know that you could tie it directly to the CPA. You could do something like an SUP. The real question seems to me is not with R-1, it’s with R-2 and R-4 and to some extent R-3.